Cargando…
Individualized flow-controlled ventilation compared to best clinical practice pressure-controlled ventilation: a prospective randomized porcine study
BACKGROUND: Flow-controlled ventilation is a novel ventilation method which allows to individualize ventilation according to dynamic lung mechanic limits based on direct tracheal pressure measurement at a stable constant gas flow during inspiration and expiration. The aim of this porcine study was t...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7686826/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33239039 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-020-03325-3 |
_version_ | 1783613412095295488 |
---|---|
author | Spraider, Patrick Martini, Judith Abram, Julia Putzer, Gabriel Glodny, Bernhard Hell, Tobias Barnes, Tom Enk, Dietmar |
author_facet | Spraider, Patrick Martini, Judith Abram, Julia Putzer, Gabriel Glodny, Bernhard Hell, Tobias Barnes, Tom Enk, Dietmar |
author_sort | Spraider, Patrick |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Flow-controlled ventilation is a novel ventilation method which allows to individualize ventilation according to dynamic lung mechanic limits based on direct tracheal pressure measurement at a stable constant gas flow during inspiration and expiration. The aim of this porcine study was to compare individualized flow-controlled ventilation (FCV) and current guideline-conform pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) in long-term ventilation. METHODS: Anesthetized pigs were ventilated with either FCV or PCV over a period of 10 h with a fixed FiO(2) of 0.3. FCV settings were individualized by compliance-guided positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and peak pressure (P(peak)) titration. Flow was adjusted to maintain normocapnia and the inspiration to expiration ratio (I:E ratio) was set at 1:1. PCV was performed with a PEEP of 5 cm H(2)O and P(peak) was set to achieve a tidal volume (V(T)) of 7 ml/kg. The respiratory rate was adjusted to maintain normocapnia and the I:E ratio was set at 1:1.5. Repeated measurements during observation period were assessed by linear mixed-effects model. RESULTS: In FCV (n = 6), respiratory minute volume was significantly reduced (6.0 vs 12.7, MD − 6.8 (− 8.2 to − 5.4) l/min; p < 0.001) as compared to PCV (n = 6). Oxygenation was improved in the FCV group (paO(2) 119.8 vs 96.6, MD 23.2 (9.0 to 37.5) Torr; 15.97 vs 12.87, MD 3.10 (1.19 to 5.00) kPa; p = 0.010) and CO(2) removal was more efficient (paCO(2) 40.1 vs 44.9, MD − 4.7 (− 7.4 to − 2.0) Torr; 5.35 vs 5.98, MD − 0.63 (− 0.99 to − 0.27) kPa; p = 0.006). P(peak) and driving pressure were comparable in both groups, whereas PEEP was significantly lower in FCV (p = 0.002). Computed tomography revealed a significant reduction in non-aerated lung tissue in individualized FCV (p = 0.026) and no significant difference in overdistended lung tissue, although a significantly higher V(T) was applied (8.2 vs 7.6, MD 0.7 (0.2 to 1.2) ml/kg; p = 0.025). CONCLUSION: Our long-term ventilation study demonstrates the applicability of a compliance-guided individualization of FCV settings, which resulted in significantly improved gas exchange and lung tissue aeration without signs of overinflation as compared to best clinical practice PCV. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7686826 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-76868262020-11-25 Individualized flow-controlled ventilation compared to best clinical practice pressure-controlled ventilation: a prospective randomized porcine study Spraider, Patrick Martini, Judith Abram, Julia Putzer, Gabriel Glodny, Bernhard Hell, Tobias Barnes, Tom Enk, Dietmar Crit Care Research BACKGROUND: Flow-controlled ventilation is a novel ventilation method which allows to individualize ventilation according to dynamic lung mechanic limits based on direct tracheal pressure measurement at a stable constant gas flow during inspiration and expiration. The aim of this porcine study was to compare individualized flow-controlled ventilation (FCV) and current guideline-conform pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) in long-term ventilation. METHODS: Anesthetized pigs were ventilated with either FCV or PCV over a period of 10 h with a fixed FiO(2) of 0.3. FCV settings were individualized by compliance-guided positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and peak pressure (P(peak)) titration. Flow was adjusted to maintain normocapnia and the inspiration to expiration ratio (I:E ratio) was set at 1:1. PCV was performed with a PEEP of 5 cm H(2)O and P(peak) was set to achieve a tidal volume (V(T)) of 7 ml/kg. The respiratory rate was adjusted to maintain normocapnia and the I:E ratio was set at 1:1.5. Repeated measurements during observation period were assessed by linear mixed-effects model. RESULTS: In FCV (n = 6), respiratory minute volume was significantly reduced (6.0 vs 12.7, MD − 6.8 (− 8.2 to − 5.4) l/min; p < 0.001) as compared to PCV (n = 6). Oxygenation was improved in the FCV group (paO(2) 119.8 vs 96.6, MD 23.2 (9.0 to 37.5) Torr; 15.97 vs 12.87, MD 3.10 (1.19 to 5.00) kPa; p = 0.010) and CO(2) removal was more efficient (paCO(2) 40.1 vs 44.9, MD − 4.7 (− 7.4 to − 2.0) Torr; 5.35 vs 5.98, MD − 0.63 (− 0.99 to − 0.27) kPa; p = 0.006). P(peak) and driving pressure were comparable in both groups, whereas PEEP was significantly lower in FCV (p = 0.002). Computed tomography revealed a significant reduction in non-aerated lung tissue in individualized FCV (p = 0.026) and no significant difference in overdistended lung tissue, although a significantly higher V(T) was applied (8.2 vs 7.6, MD 0.7 (0.2 to 1.2) ml/kg; p = 0.025). CONCLUSION: Our long-term ventilation study demonstrates the applicability of a compliance-guided individualization of FCV settings, which resulted in significantly improved gas exchange and lung tissue aeration without signs of overinflation as compared to best clinical practice PCV. BioMed Central 2020-11-25 /pmc/articles/PMC7686826/ /pubmed/33239039 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-020-03325-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Spraider, Patrick Martini, Judith Abram, Julia Putzer, Gabriel Glodny, Bernhard Hell, Tobias Barnes, Tom Enk, Dietmar Individualized flow-controlled ventilation compared to best clinical practice pressure-controlled ventilation: a prospective randomized porcine study |
title | Individualized flow-controlled ventilation compared to best clinical practice pressure-controlled ventilation: a prospective randomized porcine study |
title_full | Individualized flow-controlled ventilation compared to best clinical practice pressure-controlled ventilation: a prospective randomized porcine study |
title_fullStr | Individualized flow-controlled ventilation compared to best clinical practice pressure-controlled ventilation: a prospective randomized porcine study |
title_full_unstemmed | Individualized flow-controlled ventilation compared to best clinical practice pressure-controlled ventilation: a prospective randomized porcine study |
title_short | Individualized flow-controlled ventilation compared to best clinical practice pressure-controlled ventilation: a prospective randomized porcine study |
title_sort | individualized flow-controlled ventilation compared to best clinical practice pressure-controlled ventilation: a prospective randomized porcine study |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7686826/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33239039 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-020-03325-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT spraiderpatrick individualizedflowcontrolledventilationcomparedtobestclinicalpracticepressurecontrolledventilationaprospectiverandomizedporcinestudy AT martinijudith individualizedflowcontrolledventilationcomparedtobestclinicalpracticepressurecontrolledventilationaprospectiverandomizedporcinestudy AT abramjulia individualizedflowcontrolledventilationcomparedtobestclinicalpracticepressurecontrolledventilationaprospectiverandomizedporcinestudy AT putzergabriel individualizedflowcontrolledventilationcomparedtobestclinicalpracticepressurecontrolledventilationaprospectiverandomizedporcinestudy AT glodnybernhard individualizedflowcontrolledventilationcomparedtobestclinicalpracticepressurecontrolledventilationaprospectiverandomizedporcinestudy AT helltobias individualizedflowcontrolledventilationcomparedtobestclinicalpracticepressurecontrolledventilationaprospectiverandomizedporcinestudy AT barnestom individualizedflowcontrolledventilationcomparedtobestclinicalpracticepressurecontrolledventilationaprospectiverandomizedporcinestudy AT enkdietmar individualizedflowcontrolledventilationcomparedtobestclinicalpracticepressurecontrolledventilationaprospectiverandomizedporcinestudy |